267 F.

2d 849

In re BEAR RIVER DRAINAGE DISTRICT.

In the matter of the general determination of all the rights to
the use of water, both surface and underground, within the
drainage area of the Bear River and all its tributaries in Utah.
Misc. No. 3.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

June 5, 1959.

Perry W. Morton, Asst. Atty. Gen., A. Pratt Kesler, U.S. Atty., Salt Lake
City, Utah, David R. Warner and Alfred H. O. Boudreau, Jr., Attorneys,
Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., for applicant.
E. R. Callister, Atty. Gen., for the State of Utah, Robert B. Porter and
Richard R. Boyle, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State of Utah, for opponent.
Before BRATTON, Chief Judge, and LEWIS and BREITENSTEIN,
Circuit Judges.
BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge.

The United States has applied for the authorization of an interlocutory appeal
under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b).

The State Engineer of Utah instituted proceedings in the district court of Cache
County, Utah, to adjudicate rights to the use of all the waters within the Bear
River drainage in Utah. Pursuant to 43 U.S.C.A. 666, a summons was served
upon a representative of the Attorney General of the United States. On petition
of the United States the case was removed to the United States District Court
for the District of Utah. The State Engineer moved to remand and the United
States moved to dismiss. Relying upon its opinion in a comparable case, In re
Green River Drainage Area, D.C., 147 F.Supp. 127, the district court denied
the motion to dismiss and remanded the case and in its order taking such action
made the statement required by 1292(b). The controlling question of law was
phrased thus:

"Is suit against the United States authorized under the circumstances of this
case by 43 U.S.C. 666?"

In its former opinion the court held that 43 U.S.C.A. 666 was a consent to
suit in such a case and that the United States did not have the right to remove to
federal court because in the then status of the case the United States District
Court did not have original jurisdiction.1 As the court acted in reliance on that
opinion it must have reached the same conclusions in the pending case.

An order remanding a case to the state court from which it was removed is not
reviewable on appeal or otherwise.2 While the generality of 1292(b) might
seem sufficient to encompass a remand order, it does not expressly either
amend or repeal 1447(d). Repeals by implication are not favored.3 The
intention of Congress to repeal, modify or supersede must be clear and
manifest.4 The earlier statute, 1447(d), applies specially to prohibit appeals
from remand orders. The later statute, 1292 (b), applies generally to "a civil
action" in which "an order not otherwise appealable under this section" is made.
As there is no express repeal or absolute incompatibility, the presumption is
that the special statute is intended to remain in force.5 We are convinced that by
the enactment of 1292(b) Congress did not intend to abandon the long
established policy expressed in 1447(d).6

The United States seeks to avoid the effect of 1447(d) by asserting that its
application is confined solely to the ruling of the district court that suit against
the United States is authorized by 43 U.S.C.A. 666. The difficulty is that if
the application for interlocutory appeal is granted, a ruling on this issue will
avail nothing as the remand order stands effective. The remand, right or wrong,
left the district court without jurisdiction over the cause. The procedural
difficulty is apparent. A court which held itself to be without jurisdiction
attempted to decide contemporaneously a controlling element of the cause.

In brief the situation was this. The United States removed on the ground that
the case was properly triable in federal court.7 The district court was then
confronted with two motions, one by the State Engineer to remand and one by
the United States to dismiss on the ground of sovereign immunity. While the
questions involved in the two motions were necessarily related, the better
practice would have been to rule first on the motion to remand and if granted to
have sent the motion to dismiss back to the state court.8 As the remand left the
district court without jurisdiction, an appeal to the court of appeals is a futile
thing.9

A remand order is not subject to review either directly or indirectly.10 As said in

United States v. Rice, supra, 327 U.S. at page 749, 66 S.Ct. at page 838:

"Each loses, by the order, such right as there may be to litigate the case in the
federal courts on removal, but both retain such rights as they may have to
continue the litigation in the state court or to bring an independent suit in the
federal courts."

10

In the circumstances there is nothing properly before us for review. The

application for interlocutory appeal is denied.

Notes:
1

147 F.Supp. 134, 149

28 U.S.C. 1447(d); United States v. Rice, 327 U.S. 742, 66 S.Ct. 835, 90 L.
Ed. 982

Rosenberg v. United States, 346 U.S. 273, 73 S.Ct. 1152, 97 L.Ed. 1607;
United States Alkali Export Association, Inc., v. United States, 325 U.S. 196,
209, 65 S.Ct. 1120, 89 L.Ed. 1554

City of Tulsa, Okl. v. Midland Valley R. Co., 10 Cir., 168 F.2d 252, 254, and
see United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198, 60 S.Ct. 182, 84 L.Ed. 181

United States v. Burroughs, 289 U.S. 159, 164, 53 S.Ct. 574, 77 L.Ed. 1096;
Town of Okemah, Okl. v. United States, 10 Cir., 140 F.2d 963, 965

See United States v. Rice, supra, 327 U.S. at pages 748-752, 66 S.Ct. at page
837

We do not have the petition for removal before us and hence cannot say what
was the statutory basis for the petition of the United States

Marchant v. Mead-Morrison Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 11 F.2d 368, 369

Hammond Hotel & Improvement Co. v. Finlayson, 7 Cir., 6 F.2d 446, 447

10

Pacific Live Stock Company v. Lewis, 241 U.S. 440, 447, 36 S.Ct. 637, 60 L.
Ed. 1084